Jared Lee Loughner is INNOCENT!!

Wow, I'm actually surprised at ATS right now....I can't believe how many people are failing to grasp the point of the OP's post and are operating off of pure emotion.

Why is it that so many can seperate their emotions from the Lee Harvey Oswald case, but not from this one? I don't get it..truly...It is very hard for me to believe that anyone is truly confused about the point the OP is trying to make. I would think that everyone on ATS would understand innocent until proven guilty quite well.

You don't have to believe a person is innocent to agree that a person is innocent until proven guilty. From my perspective, the OP is asking us to take a step back and examine why we are acting and talking as if there is no possibility it wasn't him.

A little bit of personal examination of our thoughts, actions, and behaviors is always good.

For peoples information it's not always the police who are crooked. They tend to get some very interesting "orders" from above. You know stuff like a judge getting nailed a a d.w.i. checkpoint, and being told to drive him home The op and others bring up some good points about evidence we are not getting. As for the level of skill to the shooter, point blank is a hard miss Random firing at close range will hit people standing in the vicinity. Really odd that Loughner got that close. What kind of security did she have at this event if any??

Originally posted by Common Good
Yea, its pretty sad how some on this site AUTOMATICALLY broke ties with this man because he is accussed of something. "Oh, hes never been one of us","he never was". I remember reading on one of the first threads authored here.

How pathetic and selfish is that?

Regardless if hes guilty or not, Muzzle is right, he does deserve his rights.

edit to add - AND A FAIR TRIAL.

edit on 12-1-2011 by Common Good because: (no reason given)

So you are suggesting that the many eye witnesses and the people who helped stop him from doing any more damage are all lying? You, are proposing one hell if a ludicrous and daffy conspiracy.

yep, he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.... But lets be realistic. The MANY witnesses are not just making it up that Jared did it... lets get into reality shall we?

reply to post by harrytuttle


I see what you are saying about it being a sweeping generalization to say that everyone thinks Loughner is guilty. However, one thing to note.....even those who think mind control or other issues could have been involved (I am one of them), still seem to be making the assumption that Loughner was the one who fired the shots. It wasn't until this post came up that I realized I had been operating on that VERY huge assumption....

Originally posted by muzzleflash
How can he get a fair trial when everyone automatically assumes he is guilty?

...everyone assumes he's guilty?... how could you possibly know the opinion of everyone thats aware of this case?... answer: you couldnt... you're just presuming they are guilty as you have charged based upon skimpy evidence at best...

...aint that a hooter?...

...i dont wanna totally rain on your parade - so let me throw another zinger into the fire...

...presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is a lie... if it were not, a person would not be put in jail against their will while awaiting trial...

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by muzzleflash
How can he get a fair trial when everyone automatically assumes he is guilty?

...everyone assumes he's guilty?... how could you possibly know the opinion of everyone thats aware of this case?... answer: you couldnt... you're just presuming they are guilty as you have charged based upon skimpy evidence at best...

...aint that a hooter?...

...i dont wanna totally rain on your parade - so let me throw another zinger into the fire...

...presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is a lie... if it were not, a person would not be put in jail against their will while awaiting trial...

Yeah Skimpy evidence I relied on to base my assumption that everyone automatically assumes he is guilty.

Like say, Every MSM outlet claims he is guilty. Thousands of websites and pages with nothing built guilty smeared all over them. And the millions of posts on the net where almost every opinion operates on the assumption that he is clearly 100% guilty.

Show me places where people are saying he is innocent, other than in this thread. Good luck.

Originally posted by kismetphayze
From my perspective, the OP is asking us to take a step back and examine why we are acting and talking as if there is no possibility it wasn't him.

And the point I've been arguing in this thread is that IF THAT'S TRULY THE CASE (I'm not saying it's not the case, it could quite possibly be the case) then what are the implications of that?

So you are suggesting that the many eye witnesses and the people who helped stop him from doing any more damage are all lying? You, are proposing one hell if a ludicrous and daffy conspiracy.

yep, he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.... But lets be realistic. The MANY witnesses are not just making it up that Jared did it... lets get into reality shall we?



Im not suggesting anything.
I dont know who taught you how to read, but you are WAY off.

Originally posted by kismetphayze
reply to post by harrytuttle

 

However, one thing to note.....even those who think mind control or other issues could have been involved (I am one of them), still seem to be making the assumption that Loughner was the one who fired the shots. It wasn't until this post came up that I realized I had been operating on that VERY huge assumption....

And that's fine! But what are the implications of that other assumption? What does it mean if he wasn't the one who shot those people? It's okay, you can say it...

reply to post by harrytuttle


I don't think it points to one specific thing. It could mean many things......


It could mean he was somehow misidentified, or set up, or part of the plot, but not the actual shooter....who knows what it means....the point is, we won't know what happened until we see the evidence.

It would also mean that the real shooter is still out there, of course.

reply to post by PlautusSatire


You ask about where is a video of this crime. You do know that this is still an ongoing investigation so until it's done you will not see any video tapes.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Every MSM outlet claims he is guilty. Thousands of websites and pages with nothing built guilty smeared all over them. And the millions of posts on the net where almost every opinion operates on the assumption that he is clearly 100% guilty.

Show me places where people are saying he is innocent, other than in this thread. Good luck.

...my point was (and i'm sure you got it), msm and those who post online are not everyone and to allege that they are, as you have, is not accurate and is, in fact, you doing what you're claiming everyone else is doing to the az shooter...

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
So you are suggesting that the many eye witnesses and the people who helped stop him from doing any more damage are all lying? You, are proposing one hell if a ludicrous and daffy conspiracy.

What many eyewitnesses? The two "witness" testimonies I've seen don't positively identify any assailant, and in both cases the witnesses were either cowering in fear and not watching or hadn't arrived on the scene yet. Where are the people who first had their hands on Loughner? It's clear you believe he's guilty, because you've seen dozens if not hundreds of people on your screen saying it, confirming your assumptions. That's not how you get at what happened in a case like this, you get it by investigating the evidence, not believing the stories of a bunch of people who didn't even witness the event.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Legal Truth -

1. Multiple Eye Witnesses - including and not limited to the lady who grabbed the second magazine from him when he attempted to reload, and the 2 guys who tackled him
2. They have the gun he used with finger prints
3. Ballistic reports and fingerprints off the bullets and casings he used

Seriously, I hope he gets the chair. There is no excuse for killing that many people. Especially the 9 year old girl.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks...presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is a lie... if it were not, a person would not be put in jail against their will while awaiting trial...

No, not really, the decision to grant bail prior to trial is based on the severity of the charges, the mental state of the accused and the likelihood he/she will be a flight risk (motive, opportunity and ability).

In minor cases (non violent crimes) usually no bail is even required if the person is poor or has ties to the community - family etc.

However, if the person has the means and motive to flee, i.e. facing death penalty and money to leave the country bail will either be quite high to limit the ability to flee even if the person has ties to the area in question.

Another factor is the mental state of the accused, which along with the severity of the case in question is likely why in this particular case he is being held.

Finally, sometimes over looked is the possibility that because of the popularity of the victim the accused actually might be at risk of retaliation from supporters making a trial impossible and is likely also a factor in this case.

He will get due process, speedy trial and is not guilty of anything at this point.

He will get credit for time served if found guilty and is likely in solitary confinement and therefore at no risk of harm by regular exposure to the actual prisoners who are guilty of their crimes.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is a lie... if it were not, a person would not be put in jail against their will while awaiting trial...

You make a good point, courts and the police routinely violate the law when they presume guilt and punish people prior to a conviction with incarceration or worse. Presumption of innocence doesn't mean you assume the accused is innocent and interpret everything accordingly, it means you do NOT assume they are guilty without evidence and it's an ancient tenet of criminal law. So far as I've seen the ONLY evidence that's been presented that Loughner did any shooting at all is the apparent fact that he was arrested on the scene. Presence is not sufficient to prove guilt, especially since none of the witness stories ever describe seeing him with a gun in his hand. One witness describes seeing it on the ground, one in another man's hand. And apparently this man also produced a magazine from Loughner's pocket (or from up his sleeve in a trivial sleight of hand) and threw it near the old woman cowering on the ground after she refused to touch the gun. And where is the guy attached to this hand described by the "concealed carry" witness (who did not actually witness anything except two men struggling with a gun in the mix).

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Show me places where people are saying he is innocent, other than in this thread. Good luck.

edit on 12-1-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)

Quite a few of my posts just before you started this thread. I can only hope I helped you see what is going on regarding the kangaroo court proceedings everywhere this subject is disgust (not a typo).

People need to understand. Jared Loughner was just trying to express him self... Everyone knew he had a problem..
The sheriff knew he needed mental help, his friends, ANYONE that knew him. You people are sick... This poor guy was trying to speak and no one would listen.. Well I guess they got what was coming.

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
You ask about where is a video of this crime. You do know that this is still an ongoing investigation so until it's done you will not see any video tapes.

I can think of countless cases where this "rule" of yours is ignored, like every single live feed of every car chase ever shown on television, Rodney King, OJ Simpson, the Hollywood bank robbery shootout, dozens of YouTube videos I've seen just in the last couple months of public shootings that were inadvertently recorded on security and other cameras.

reply to post by PlautusSatire

Are we to rely on notoriously unreliable eyewitness testimony to positively identify somebody who appeared for a few seconds while mowing people down with over 30 rounds from a single Glock pistol?

First off do you know any of the witnesses? So how are these witnesses unreliable? Actually Glock does have a 33 round magazine.So depending on the model it can go between 17 and 33 round mags.